Great another know nothing telling us that all the people studying this problem scientifically are wrong. What utter arrogance this person thinks we should not listen to the climate science about the climate no instead we should turn to an exe vet. Get over yourself. As for greenhouse gas reduction having a advise effect on developing countries well you could give the author the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant of reality, but more probably it's a straight out lie. CFC are a prefect example, the Red neck right and other nutters said it wasn't a problem even as the thinning turned into a hole, Even as the hole of got and the effects were easily measurable, you could still find people like the Author saying it would be to great a cost and would hurt the economy. Well what happened the world got together and band CFC in the most part. Not only that but the replacement for CFC was cheaper and better. The solution to global warming are cheaper and better to for us and the third world.

Where's the argument about the economic cost of Climate Change abatement on the developing world? Now that would be genuinely interesting.

This is just the usual shopping list of random contrarian factoids.

Thanks for the reality check. It is a breath of fresh air

Nice one... good for my morning smirk.

Reality check? I think you should be careful paying heed to someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Paul Williams is right. Get'em buddy.

If "global warming" is so deadly then why
is Al Gore living in a huge Mc Mansion?

I'm tired of these "Do As I Say, Not As I Do"
experts. They're all fakes.

Paul, I hope that Murray Hogarth reads your article (and my comment on his).

I have seen too much contrary evidence and too many well-based arguments to accept that there will necessarily be significant global warming this century, that the effects of such warming should be cause for great concern, and that it would be predominantly caused by human activity.

But let us suppose that governments around the world decide that the doomsayers are correct, and accordingly governments will act decisively to ameliorate emissions linked to warming. This will require that they sustain for decades policies which have significant costs on their communities but produce no discernible benefits. If the warnings are correct, drastic action may have some ameliorating impacts late in this century. But none of us paying the cost will ever know.

While there may be some votes in the issue this year, the chances that governments could maintain support for such high cost, no benefit policies for the required period is contrary to all experience.

(I drafted this earlier, I hope I'm not repeating a post.)

I am getting seriously tired of articles like this. The IPCC summary is quite specific about its reasons for its ominous conclusions. It is a very conservative document, understating at every turn rather than the opposite.

It also lays to rest several of the climate myths such as those peddled by our writer, with simple scientific information conveniently left out of the greenhouse sceptics' diatribes. Read it for yourself -- it's only 21 pages and easily findable via Google.

For a more readable gathering of the facts, see Time Magazine April 2006, also available on the web. The whole issue is devoted to the subject and comes to similar conclusions as the IPCC. Note, the magazine employs fact checkers.

As for the statement that climate change policies are siphoning the public pocket, I can only shake my head in wonder.

Start calculating how much public money is being spent on the Iraq war ALONE, and who is profiting. (Tip: it's not the renewable energy industry.) Consider that Exxon last year made the biggest corporate profit EVER. Our correspondent is seriously missing the big picture.

Read the Guardian article revealing that fossil fuel industries are offering scientists $10,000 for every article published that questions the IPCC report.

After this country has systematically defunded research into renewables, The NSW Government proposes an 'innovations fund' in its State Plan. Guess which industry is singled out for largesse? The coal industry of course.

The feds subsidise the Eden Woodchip Mill six-figure sums for every giant tree-muncher they buy, putting workers out of a job in the process.

No, corporate welfare exceeds anything spent on fixing climate change many. many times over.

Boring.

The blurb at the end says Paul Williams has veterinarian and a paramedic. Does he only respond to problems visible to the naked eye?

Do viruses exist?

We cannot take it at face value that climate change can be solely attributed to co2 emmissions.All the fossils fuels we burn today are a result of plants removing co2 from the atmosphere millions of years ago.In other words our ancient atmosphere had a lot more co2 and still life thrived.

There are so many variables such as pollution and thus heating of the oceans,sun spot activity,removal of forests,destruction of the ozone layer,change in the earths orbit,all play their part.

This does not mean we should not act,but we may be being too alarmist in our predictions and singling out fossil fuels as being the major culprit.

Particulate matter in our oceans makes them absorb much more energy.Our oceans which cover 66% of our planet have the biggest effect on weather.

There are a lot of scientists who are not convinced.I think we need to do more homework on the causes rather than going off half cocked.Remember the millenium bug that was going to destroy the world economy?This was sold to us as scientific fact.It was alarmist claptrap!

If the scientists get it wrong this time on CO2,no one will believe them in the future when real changes to planet occur threatening our survival.

Here in Europe this winter there was less snow 'than usual' on the Alps etc., ski resorts had less business etc. All the common media - 'Global Warming! - It's not snowing anymore!'

However last year, the rivers were frozen over in this area - quite a rare occurance - there were heavy snowfalls - 'more than usual' - and the favourite topic of conversation: 'Gee what a long, unusually cold hard winter this is'.

One year later - 'Global Warming!'.

'Climate change is real' = the greatest truism ever uttered.

Yes the climate changes. Now let's get on with our lives.

I noticed that the IPCC has finally accepted that Antarctica will not melt and temperatures will remain much the same down there. But how can this be a global warming if our pole is not going to melt? And how can this 'warming' be caused by CO2 when the levels are essentially the same at both poles? Yes, Arctic has CO2 at 371ppm and the Antarctic has 369ppm. So surely, if CO2 is the cause of warming then it should be equally apparent at both poles?

But it is not equal at both poles and 'global warming' is, in reality, northern hemisphere warming. So how come the EEC, who never opened their markets to fair, global, competition, now want to 'share' their self inflicted climate problems with the rest of us.

I get the impression most people over here are reacting the same way as in Oz - every time there's a warm day GW becomes the topic de jour.

As I stated above, last winter was exceptionally long and cold in Europe (at least in Germany), with lots of snow and frozen lakes and rivers. No-one spoke about GW then. And besides, I think most Germans would be quite thrilled if they didn't have to scrape the snow and ice off their windshields in the morning anymore. Or dealing with ice on their Autobahns.. if it was suddenly announced "Germany will be an average of 5 degrees hotter every year from now on" there would be celebrations in the streets..

I'm sure the Russians and other Eastern Europeans wouldn't complain too much either.. the current temperature in Agata, Russia is -40 degrees C, and according to the weather forecast will get down to -47 degrees C on Saturday. Nope, don't think they'd mind a bit of global warming at all..

I'd say a far more pressing issue over the next 50 years will be where everyone will get their food and energy from.

Please, Ev and Arjay, read the IPCC summary. All your points are covered. Talking about this year's winter or last year's summer is pointless as we are dealing with events on a geological time scale.

Climate INSTABILITY is intrinsic to global warming. Indeed Europe has suffered mini ice ages during periods of global warming, when the Gulf Stream stops.

Yes, the Antarctic may not melt and the Arctic might. There are a million climatic factors which can cause this and it has nothing to do with the existence of greenhouse effect. Atmospheric carbon levels (plus methane etc etc) are massively higher than they have been in 650 million years. This has to have some effect and we are putting the stuff there.

As for the Russians welcoming a bit of warmth, the real issue is that the frozen Tundra IS thawing and the organic CO2 stored in that giant ice block is being released -- one of the many greenhouse feedback loops which have been activated.

The conservative IPCC report stopped collecting data two years ago and, as Tim Flannery points out, the ice melt has accelerated alarmingly since then. This is another inexorable feedback loop because ice reflects sunlight while water absorbs its heat. This is real. It is happening. I fear the legacy we are leaving the next generation.

Thanks to those who have taken the time to read and respond to my article, (even those who think I am full of it!)

I think Faustino has hit the nail on the head when he (or she?) says that it will be impossible for any government to enforce reduction in carbon emissions. The problem for anthropogenic global warming/climate change believers who want carbon emissions cut, is that the warming/climate change is virtually invisible in the lives of the people who will have to pay for it. If it were not for the media and internet, who would know or care about climate change?

The practical absurdity of a state such as South Australia, which emits less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gases, legislating to reduce it's greenhouse emissions in order to affect the global climate is obvious. My cynical theory is that Mike Rann (South Australian premier, and Australia's first Minister for Climate Change) is building his climate change CV so he can snag a plum UN job after the voters get fed up with having windfarms built all over the prettiest bits of SA, and boot him out.

The IPPC SPM says it is 90% certain that humans are affecting the climate. Of course they are talking about the output of computer models. If they were discussing actual hard data, and there was a 10% chance that the results were due to chance, that would be termed statistically insignificant.

Those of us able to recall the late 1990s will be aware of the great paper tiger of the time - the supposed Y2K bug. Many respected computer scientists had decided that this was likely to destroy life as we knew it. Vast amounts of money was expended by corporations and individuals alike to ward of this unseen but apparently imminent peril. Ultimately it turned out to be the wettest of damp squibs! However it did have a great benefit to those gurus who were predicting calamity - they woke up on January 1st 2000 with large amounts of money in their pockets.

While it is clear that global temperatures are rising, the evidence that this is anything other than a normal fluctuation - which recently gave us the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age - is dubious. I am very much afraid that the Y2K spruikers have been replaced by the Greenhouse Effect spruikers.

While I am not a climatologist, I am a mathematical modeller. It seems to me that the IPCC line of thought is as follows: our models for temperature don't work; if we include an effect due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then we can adjust them work; therefore carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be the sole factor in the present global warming. This is a process of reasoning not unlike retrofitting the prophesies of Nostradamus to World War 2, the Kennedy assasinations, or the loss of the Ashes.

This process of reasoning (as mentioned by the Author) ignores other possible factors contributing to global warming, some of which may be unknown to us at present. Increased solar radiation is a clear candidate as a further factor. A simple test of this hypothesis is that the effect should be not only felt on earth but on other planets. Funnily enough this is the case - global warming has been reported on Mars. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html or just put "mars nasa warming" into your favourite search engine!)

Have they tried running the models without the output of CO2 from humans, just nature's CO2 output? That would be interesting. The Victorian fires were supposed to emit enough CO2 to account for 1000 coal-fired power stations for 1 year. When you consider the regularly and severity of natural fires around the globe, that's a lot of carbon. How much worse would it be if humans didnt intervene to put them out sooner than nature would have?

Consider also the CO2 released from rotting wood, and the fact that old growth forests rarely soak up CO2 (which implies that we have actually done the climate a favour by cutting down old forests and replanting).

Its not that I dont believe that the pollution that we emit doesnt have a negative impact on the environment - I'm sure it does, and we need to act to stem it. I just dont think the doomsday prophesies are called for until science understands ALL the factors influencing climate changes. There have been too many scienctific backflips over the years to rush in too quickly. Besides, higher sea levels and more droughts are infinitely more manageable than nuclear-wasted land. Until we know how to make the waste safe again, we need to stay away from that evil stuff.

Reynard,

That is a good post Reynard, and from a mathematcial modeller to boot.
Is there any more material like that. What about also making comment or two on the material comming out from Jonathan Lowes blog.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

Reynard's post may be 'good' but it does not stack up. Comparing the world body of scientific investigation into climate change to the Y2K scare or Nostrodamus has no basis whatever. It is like comparing the Oxford Dictionary to a Cheezels ad. Personally I never gave Y2K, Nostrodamus or Kennedy conspiracy theories a moment's notice.

I repeat, please read the IPCC summary. All your theories about modelling are way off. Models are only one of thousands of factors considered.

And Country Gal, when trees burn or rot they simply return the same carbon to the atmosphere they took out in the first place so they kind of balance out. The planet's carbon output has been roughly the same for about 650,000 years -- until industrialisation, since when it has skyrocketed along with global warming. The onus is really on you guys to prove there is no causal link.

As for 'other causes' such as increased solar radiation, yes, they have thought about that, measured it and discounted it. At least have a look at Time magazine April 2006. It's all there, fact-checked.

Michael G

All of whose theories about modelling are way off?. In what way are they way off? Please enlighten us.

It is the IPCC that is making the claims as to what the future temperatures will be based soley upon the way they make their models dance at the parametric level. That means they can make them do anything to fit with current data, but dont have a clue as to their accuracy/relevance 100 years hence.

All we do know is that the error limits would be so wide to render them completely useless as "knowledge" upon which one should make expensive policy.

The IPCC only considered insolation, and not the other sources of possible sun influence.

"You Guys", whoever they may be, dont have to come up with anything.It is the proponents of gullible warming who have to establish their case, and not try and pass off rubbish, such as climate models projected out 100 years, when we know they cant represent the complexity of the systems involved.

I know people are being paid $10000 for each article that's critical of the IPCC report and global warming, but surely there must be a line drawn somewhere between mendacity and pure stupidity !

The consequences of Climate Change are uncertain and will take at least a century to be proven one way or another. The IPCC is bought lock stock and smoking barrel by corporate donations, grants and salaries. Oil giants being the major contributors.

The consequences of a 2025 global overpopulation Armageddon are almost certain. Certain to include a return to pre industrial revolution population levels commensurate with the loss of OIL as an energy source. It was oil ENERGY that will have allowed populations to grow to 8 billion by 2025 and it is the loss of that oil energy input that will cause populations to crash back to around 2 billion in 2025.

That implies the consequences of climate change are a red herring foisted on normal hard working people by global corporations and their in-pocket government boot lickers. They know Armageddon is nearing and are trying to corner every valued commodity, sports stars and moviestars at the top of the list, in a vain attempt to not only survive the CRASH but to help it along with germ warfare, sponsored terrorism or whatever else they can muster to create a favourable outcome for the richest 1% on the planet.

Will global magnates thrive and survive climate change after they have engineered the perfect Armageddon? Are the 99% majority of world citizens so stupid, so besotted by their media monopoly propaganda, sports stars, movie stars, mobile phones, plasma screens and SUVs, that they will allow this to happen?

Have a guess? The worm is turning. Just watch the March and November elections When Iemma and Howard are ousted we should all be very curious to finally see who they go to work for. Because that is WHO they have been working for all along.

A silly boy who would not know a VOC from a sock.

Forget the climate and look at CO2 which is the end product of hundreds of carcinogenic hydrocarbons too numerous to list. All carbon based chemicals when burnt, convert to carbon dioxide.

CO2 raises surface temperature and evaporates water vapor which in turn produces more heat.

Realise that the oceans are now two and a half times more acidic than before the industrial revolution. Acidity reduces PH, destroying corals and marine life where destructive algaes and bacteria thrive.

Playing tit for tat with Mother Earth's natural CO2 emissions is foolish indeed.

First of all, thanks to Online Opinion for giving us a non-PC article for a change. A well-written piece. It is crystal cllear on its points. All reasonable & important questions it raises too.

If GW generally, & the g/house effect specifically, really are the HUGE problem that they are made out to be, then the leading proponents need to present this to us in a manner in which the layman can understand, & give us the smoking gun (sorry). I mean with Sadddam, we are constantly reminded that there was no smoking gun. Where is it here? The 0.7C temp rise in 150 years? That's more feeble than a Saddam stockpile of AK-47s. So this is what we have been getting all worked up over?

One would think that you could find a simple & objective summation on Wikiped. Not so. For such a crisis topic, they may as well be presenting the nightly weather report - it's that mundane. No urgency in it whatsoever, very dry (sorry again) and completely lacking in an analysis of what the world scientific community agree on & disagree on in relation to this subject. Completely unhelpful.

So rather than blame the doubters, maybe the proponents have a responsibility to EXPLAIN & JUSTIFY their stance better.

Please don't tell me all I have to do is read the ICCP or whatever-it-is-report. If this alleged crisis is real, proponents need to bring the report to us, so to speak, by making its findings fool-proof persuasive before they ask taxpayers to spend trillions. And if they want to write us off as fools who will never get it, then they really do have a problem in getting people on bored (sorry once again).

dickie,
"Realise that the oceans are now two and a half times more acidic than before the industrial revolution."

Sorry to contradict the dramatics, but acidity has changed by 0.1 units or a 30% acidity rise since the beginning of the Industrial rev.

Rojo

You are correct. My error was a result of writing in haste, from memory and not checking notes - certainly not from "dramatics."

Correction: The Marine Conservation Biology Institute (US) predicts that by the end of the century, with the current volume of CO2 emissions, the ocean acidity will be 2.5 times greater than before the Industrial Revolution.

They also claim that the PH has dropped by 0.025 units in the last 15 years. You would agree that the change has been rapid, given as you state, a total drop of 0.1 units has occurred since the IR.

Authors on the MCBI website advise that PH levels were stable between 1000 and 1800, however they predict that by 2100, levels could drop by 0.3 units.

While predictions vary, I shall continue to adhere to the Precautionary Principle - certainly not the "Do nothing - get over it" principle.

The author asks: "How is the weather?"

Lousy, thank you and the climate change in my area, influences my assessments on GW and the need for caution.

My village has experienced about 12 straight days of over 40 degrees - a couple have reached 45 and 46 degrees. Plenty of red and industrial dust , no rain and the garden, which has survived beautifully for some thirty years, in an arid region, has all but died!

And current, official, pollutant emissions' reports, reveal that industrial CO2, in my community has, unbelievably, increased.

Now, that should keep the sceptics happy!

Michael G, by burning coal we are only returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it was taken by the vegetation that subsequently became coal, no different to your analysis of burning trees.

The fact is that we still dont understand the cycles of nature properly. I mean, if we cant accurately predict weather even a week out, how on earth are we supposed to be able to model thousands of years of data.

I am not trying to say that humans dont have an impact on the environment, but I would be more concerned about the effects of more harmful pollutants, than of a gas that is a part of the natural cycle anyway.

TNT writes:
--The 0.7C temp rise in 150 years? That's more feeble than... --

Did you think New Orleans was a 'feeble' effort? They've hardly begun cleaning up the damage. Hurricanes are driven by warm oceans. 0.7C is only a global average. More events like that are 'very likely'. That rise is only the beginning of an accelerating process. The feedback mechanisms of melting Arctic ice and tundra are just two of the feedback loops driving it. Don't forget we know sea levels have risen 6-7 metres in the past. New Orleans is NOTHING compared to the genie we are letting out of the bottle.

TNT writes:
-- maybe the proponents have a responsibility to EXPLAIN & JUSTIFY their stance better. --

See Time Magazine April 2006. It's all fact-checked. It's easy to read. They quote people like NASA's chief climate scientist (hardly a leftie nutter like me!). Here's a URL if you really want it served up on a platter: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

TNT writes:
-- proponents need to bring the report to us, so to speak, by making its findings fool-proof persuasive before they ask taxpayers to spend trillions. --

We are not asking you to spend trillions. A solar thermal power station that would power Sydney costs no more than a nuclear station or the 'clean coal' stations our government is fantasising about. Additionally, the solar thermal station can be running in three years AND absorb the employment lost to the coal industry. That's why California is building one right now. Here's a URL on a platter again: http://www.chrisharris.org.au/?p=125

(Employment related: in 1989 Aust made as many solar panels as Japan. Now Japan supplies 50% of the worls market, we supply 1%. So don't give me the employment fallacy please. It also may be possible to EXPORT solar thermal power via DC lines from sunny countries like ours to hazy ones like Indonesia, or Portugal to northern Europe, instead of exporting more coal). Where's the downside?

Michael G, cheers. I shall check them out and post again. I am sceptical, but I will read.

Just a thought.A lot of the gases from our cars is carbon monoxide ie incomplete combustion of carbon.Has there been a separate study done on carbon monoxide as opposed to carbon dioxide,or am I barking up the same tree?

We are dealing with an extremely complex system and there are many fronts upon which man is impacting upon environment.I have little doubt that we are changing our climate.We have to get it right without being alarmist.

The really big question is;when will these changes achieve their own momentum and thus reach a point that we will have no control of outcomes?If so,how much time do we have to turn things around before we reach the point of no return?

Many consider nuclear energy as being the solution,but our largest nuclear reactor is our own sun and we have only just begun to find ways of harvesting it's bountiful energy.Can the oil companies move beyond simplistic notions of drilling holes in the ground and invest in R&D.

Arjay

Atmospheric carbon monoxide elevates methane and ozone before converting to carbon dioxide. I believe all carbon based chemicals, when burnt finally convert to CO2.

The federal government encourages industry to burn un-tested unregulated waste oil as fuel. They call it "recycling" which could not be further from the truth. Waste oil in all other developed countries (including the edicts of the UN)is categorised as a hazardous waste, and must be regulated, but not in Australia.

When shabbily operated and poorly combusted industrial plants burn this dangerous compound with its unknown substances, it releases massive amounts of CO and suspected and proven carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

The transport industry, as you say, is one of the largest polluters -then you have the metal ore industry, coal and the uranium industries, to name a few.

No, I am not an advocate for shutting down our industries, but rather to see governments act responsibly, regulate and cap these emissions and to cease polluting the environment and communities and their adept practices at cover-ups.

Unfortunately, everyone currently refers to CO2 only. I am advised that CO2 is simply the end fate of the following (to name a few):

Polycyclic hydrocarbons which include napthalene, fluorene, benzo (b)and (K) fluoranthene, dibenzo anthracene pyrene etc etc, (volatile organic compounds (about 250), aliphatic hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarcarbons. The list is endless.

When chlorine is hanging around, the potential for the formation of dioxins and PCBs (yes still around) occurs when burning takes place.

Then of course, in certain industries such as gold and nickel, you have massive releases of mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium (3 & 6) and particulates coated with all of the above.

To report that our governments are advanced in giving us renewable energies is a joke. The industrial emissions of CO2 are increasing and the cover-ups continue, denied by many for vested interests and a reluctance to properly investigate the unethical actions of governmental environment agencies and their senior bureaucrats.

Paul, returning from a trip, I notice your comment "I think Faustino has hit the nail on the head when he (or she?) says that it will be impossible for any government to enforce reduction in carbon emissions." Well, thank you. Faustino is masculine, the feminine is Faustina. Though as it's my nom-de-net rather than given name, who can tell? :-)

Although one or two respondents have assumed I'm Hispanic, I'm actually a much-travelled Geordie man.

Michael G

Having read the Time article you recommended closely, then skimmed the chris harris one & found more on Wikipedia (just found LOADS more), I agree with Arjay. I think that on the balance of probabilities, man-made global warming is happening. But I think it is still a theory, & a long way from being fact. Also think a lot of it is alarmist, & the doomday scenarios are greatly exaggerated.

There are still quite a number of scientists who dispute a lot re the "global warming THEORY" (not my words, Wikipedia's words). Are all of these people really on the payroll of big industry?

The Time article you sourced me is laced with melodramatic language and that for me is a real turn off on such a seemingly important issue.

"the global climate seems to be crashing around us"
"The last 12 months have been alarming."
"habitats crashing"
"There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger,
"environmental collapse happening in so many places at once"
"the crisis is upon us"
"something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming"
"Pump enough CO2 into the sky...& that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam"
"Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us"

and of course:

"the naysayers--many of whom were on the payroll of energy companies"
(contd next post)

(from previous post)

There are loads of contradictions even among those who support the theory. Eg re the effect of global warming over Europe, the Time article on p4 talks for 3 whole paragraphs about the cooling of Europe:

"In a global-warming world, it's unlikely that any amount of cooling that resulted from this would be sufficient to support glaciers, but it could make things awfully uncomfortable...We in the U.K. are on the same latitude as Alaska. The reason we can live here is the Gulf Stream."

BUT Wiki quotes the IPCC thus:
"the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe...However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Wiki also points out that from the 1940s to 70s, the theory of
GLOBAL COOLING was popular, when the earth's temps cooled during this period, & people thought this had something to do with the ice-age cycles.

To quote Wiki again on global cooling (but could equally be applied to global warming):
"However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped;"

BUT, if it takes an alarmist approach to develop alternatives to fossil fuels, wean us off oil, cut pollution, cut the loss of biodiversity & get us out of the Middle East, & do this all relatively cheaply (eg Harris) I say bring it on!

TNT, you are a rare one -- someone who will go and check sources with an open mind rather than just sticking to a rusted-on, received opinion! Respect.

I agree, global warming is a theory just like evolution. But it's a very well supported theory which seems to be coming true. So just in case it's right, we need to be taking measures to reduce our exposure to risk.

There are many ways to do that eg solar thermal (available now) vs 'clean' coal (still just a theory) but they will all cost money. On the other hand a lot of employment can be generated in renewable energy to absorb the loss to the coal industry, and in 30 years, after the capital costs have been paid off, we will leave our grandkids a cheap, sustainable power source.

The choice is clear to me...

Michael G. Thanks & same to you. It was your measured style (& assistance with the URLs) which made me want to check the issue out further. It will be interesting to see how this issue progresses over the coming months & years